New Research Finds Sea Level Rise Claims “Definitely Conjecture”…”Highly Erroneous”…Coastlines Stable Or Growing!

Accelerating sea level rise due to global warming is supposed to eat away at the shorelines across the globe. However a recent paper published in the journal Nature here authored by a team scientists led by Arjen Luijendijk found that some 75% of the world’s sandy shorelines are stable or growing!

An analysis of satellite-derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, but 28% are accreting and 48% are stable.

Also erosion rates exceed 5 m/yr along 4% of the sandy shoreline and are greater than 10 m/yr for 2% of the global sandy shoreline.

Image source: Luijendijk et al., 2018

According to the paper, the application of an automated shoreline detection method to the sandy shorelines resulted in a global dataset of shoreline change rates for the 33 year period 1984–2016.

The scientists also found that Australia and Africa are the only continents for which net erosion (−0.20 m/yr and −0.07 m/yr respectively) is found, with all other continents showing net accretion.

What’s surprising is that another researcher has determined that melting ice caps from global warming induced ice melt does not contribute to sea level rise, and that sea level rise is mostly caused by the Earth’s shape.

3 mm/yr sea level rise “definitely a conjecture”

In a scientific paper published by the journal Geoscience Frontiers, Aftab Alam Khan at the Department of Geology, University of Dhaka in Bangladesh found: “thermal expansion only explains part (about 0.4 mm/yr) of the 1.8 mm/yr observed sea level rise of the past few decades.” and that the claim and prediction of 3 mm/yr rise of sea-level due to global warming and polar ice-melt “is definitely a conjecture”

He added that the prediction of 4–6.6 ft sea level rise in the next 91 years between 2009 and 2100 is “highly erroneous”!

Khan then concludes that though global warming, both polar and terrestrial ice melts, and climate change might be a reality, all these phenomena are not related to sea level rise and fall.

Ice melt would not contribute to sea level rise

According to Khan, “Geophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise.”

If Kahn’s assertion turns out to be correct, then IPCC scientists will have some major scientific revamping to do.

44 responses to “New Research Finds Sea Level Rise Claims “Definitely Conjecture”…”Highly Erroneous”…Coastlines Stable Or Growing!”

  1. tom0mason

    Also of note is this report from University of Massachusetts at Amherst which oldbrew on tallbloke·wordpress·com pointed out. Basically they see only 0.28 metres (1 foot) over the last 200 years —

    Reconstructing longest American water level, instrumented flood record, in Boston Harbor
    Date: June 1, 2018
    Source: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Summary:
    Using newly-discovered archival measurements to construct an instrumental record of water levels and storm tides in Boston since 1825, researchers report that local averaged relative sea level rose by nearly a foot (0.28 meters) over the past 200 years, with the greatest increase occurring since 1920. The work also highlights tides and their significant effect on flooding in the city.
    Extract:
    “The astronomical influences on tides can be a bit confusing, but our research shows that slow changes in the moon’s orbit around the earth relative to the earth’s orbit around the sun results in high tides increasing and decreasing over an 18.6-year cycle.”

    This means extreme high tides may be as much as four inches greater at the high point in this cycle compared to its low point, he adds.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180601134756.htm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The Effect of the 18.6-Year Lunar Nodal Cycle on Regional Sea-Level Rise Estimates

    A known decadal-scale variation is the 18.6-year nodal cycle. Here, we show how failing to account for the nodal cycle resulted in an overestimation of Dutch sea-level rise. The nodal cycle is present across the globe with a varying phase and a median amplitude of 2.2 cm.

    http://jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The lunar nodal cycle and its effects on climate
    https://ktwop.com/2013/07/27/the-lunar-nodal-cycle-and-its-effects-on-climate/

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Climate don’t-you-know is all about interacting cycles and chaotic fluids movements. The evidence is obvious that it is NOT and never has been about CO2 levels (that’s just politics — egos, power, greed and money).
    Historical records show that CO2 levels are at best a consequence of other climate factors and not the cause of them.

  2. Bitter&twisted

    The science is NOT settled!

    1. Newminster

      I think “the science” probably is settled, B&T. What’s still to play for is the understanding of that science and how much you can tweak it, “misunderstand” it, or even lie about it in order to keep tenure and the grant money flowing.

      1. spike55

        “The Science” of AGW is settled..

        Its totally anti-real-science, and a load cobblers and erroneous quackery..

        .. but that is all they have to build their cult-mantra on.

  3. John Andrews

    Sandy beaches are fed with new sand from rivers, especially during floods. The sands migrate up or down the coast lines depending on the coastal currents. Man has altered many of the major rivers to control flooding which reduces the production and flow of sand to the coasts. Therefore, any measurement of sandy beach shoreline change may or may not be attributable to climate change.

  4. SebastianH

    However a recent paper published in the journal Nature here authored by a team scientists led by Arjen Luijendijk found that some 75% of the world’s sandy shorelines are stable or growing!

    What is the connection between sea level changes and eroding/growing sandy beaches?

    What’s surprising is that another researcher has determined that melting ice caps from global warming induced ice melt does not contribute to sea level rise, and that sea level rise is mostly caused by the Earth’s shape.

    Yeah, that was a good one …. Kenneth posted it in March already so the “surprise” has weared off a littlebit. However, I am still a littlebit shocked that everyone else was/is so wrong on the topic of sea level rise and this one scientist has it all figured out. Surely changed the field … a real seminal paper as Kenneth put it back then 😉

    If someone is not able to detect sarcasm, I am making fun of these findings! Deal with it, because …

    Khan then concludes that though global warming, both polar and terrestrial ice melts, and climate change might be a reality, all these phenomena are not related to sea level rise and fall.

    … that is simply ridiculous and should have let all your warning bells ring very loudly. You know, BS that should trigger a skeptic mind to be … well … skeptic.

    1. spike55

      My BS meter ALWAYS goes off when I read your posts, seb.

      You have posted NOTHING to counter any of the SCIENCE in the original posting..

      Your mindless opinion does NOT count for anything.

      Heck, you can’t even support the central meme of the AGW scam.. ie CO2 warming.

      “… that is simply ridiculous”

      Yes I agree that the statement that man-made climate change might be a reality.. certainly IS ridiculous.

      There is ZERO evidence of any man-made global climate change, ANYWHERE.

      1. SebastianH

        This begs for a reply …

        My BS meter ALWAYS goes off when I read your posts, seb.

        I assume because your brain has the capability to detect what you are about to write as a reply? You should listen to your BS meter …

        You have posted NOTHING to counter any of the SCIENCE in the original posting..

        You are absolutely right, I didn’t counter any science in my comment. I asked a question about a connection, I notified the author that a certain paper has been discussed before on his blog and finally I pointed out that there seems to be no skepticism towards entirely unscientific claims if they somehow “feel right” (e.g. as in supporting the “it’s all a hoax” theme).

        1. spike55

          Well that was yet another load of BS from you, seb

          Spent several line saying absolutely NOTHING of any scientific worth at all.

          What you “seem” to see is irrelevant,

          We look at all papers as “maybe”, always sceptical.

          We then look at the data supporting them.

          They are not “unscientific ” claim made here, they are backed with solid science and rational thought process.

          “Unscientific” claims are those backed by ZERO evidence, and irrational anti-science…

          .. you know, like CO2 warming.

    2. spike55

      “However, I am still a little bit shocked that everyone else was/is so wrong on the topic of sea level rise and this one scientist has it all figured out.”

      Again proving you have ZERO clue how science actually works.

      Stomach ulcers were caused by stress, y’know..

      .. until ONE scientist proved they weren’t.

      Consensus is not science.. EVER.

      1. Bitter&twisted

        The history of science is littered with lone mavericks upsetting the consensus.
        Einstein is the most famous. He overturned the Newtonian applecart.
        Science is not and never been about consensus.

  5. spike55

    Melting Arctic and Antarctic land ice contributes SO LITTLE to sea level rise that the AGW sea-level worriers/scammers have to introduce things like thermal expansion and modelled GIA to scare their supporters.

    GIA is to do with the Earth’s shape.

    OOPS, seb goofs up again.

    The Earth has ALWAYS changed shape..

    .. and will continue to do so.

    1. SebastianH

      Melting Arctic and Antarctic land ice contributes SO LITTLE to sea level rise that the AGW sea-level worriers/scammers have to introduce things like thermal expansion and modelled GIA to scare their supporters.

      What? Are you saying that thermal expansion is a hoax too?

      And now it’s Earth’s changing shape that determines the sea level in timespans at the decade/century scale … got it!

      Has anyone read the conclusion in the Khan paper? That one anonymous reviewer he had was not enough … this is a non-peer-reviewed junk-science paper and you guys are falling for it without the hint of just a little bit of skepticism.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        What? Are you saying that thermal expansion is a hoax too?

        It’s not a hoax. But thermal expansion doesn’t deliver enough to sea level rise (about 0.64 mm/yr for 2005-2013) for the currently claimed rate to add up, especially when we consider that terrestrial water storage more than cancels out (-0.71 mm/yr for 2002-2014) the attribution from thermal expansion. Since thermal expansion and water storage on land consistently offset each other, that leaves only the contribution from ice sheets and glaciers to raise sea levels by the “problematic” amounts you’ve written that you believe in (1 meter by 2100). And, as you know, the contribution from ice sheets and glaciers isn’t going to be enough to get to that “problematic” level: the Greenland ice sheet, for example, has only contributed 1.5 cm since 1900. So where are you imagining we’ll get all this “problematic” 1-meter-by-2100 sea level rise from, SebastianH? If Greenland’s contributed 1.5 cm in 110 years, and you believe we’ll get 1,000 cm by 2100, where are these 99_ cm going to be coming from?

        Terrestrial Water Storage: -0.71 mm/yr (2002-2014)
        Reager et al., 2016
        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699
        “We found that between 2002 and 2014, climate variability resulted in an additional 3200 ± 900 gigatons of water being stored on land. This gain partially offset water losses from ice sheets, glaciers, and groundwater pumping, slowing the rate of sea level rise by -0.71 ± 0.20 millimeters per year. These findings highlight the importance of climate-driven changes in hydrology when assigning attribution to decadal changes in sea level.”
        ——-
        Thermal Expansion: 0.64 mm/yr (2005-2013)
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2387.html
        Llovel et al., 2014
        “Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise [0.64 mm/yr total].”

        1. Yonason

          @Kenneth

          I’m rather partial to the detailed work of Nils-Axel Mörner, myself.

          “• The thermal expansion in the open oceans can hardly exceed 10 cm (2). Towards the coasts, the effect rapidly decreases with depth and becomes zero at the shore (because there is no water to expand and there will be no flush inlands).”

          and also.

          “In case of a global sea level rise, the Earth must slow down (following the law of conservation of angular momentum). After 1972, the Earth rotation has speeded up, however (Fig. 4). This is a strong argument against a global sea level rise.”

          more from here
          http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-nils-axel-morner-sea-level-changes.html

          See also here.
          https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MoernerCopenhag_01.pdf

          And let us not forget this NTZ article on what he has to say.
          http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/04/world-leading-authority-sea-level-absolutely-stable-poor-quality-data-from-office-perps-ipcc-false/

          And, for those who enjoy hearing him speak.
          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aEkIf5R-gLc

          Delightful!

          I so enjoy hearing people speak who know what they are talking about.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            The thermal expansion in the open oceans can hardly exceed 10 cm

            Correct. That’s why the belief that “global warming” will lead to meter(s) of sea level rise is so dubious. This is consistent with what Dr. Khan summarized in his paper.

            “Hence, both regional and local sea-level rise and fall in meter-scale is related to the geologic events only and not related to global warming and/or polar ice melt.”

            Yes, thermal expansion (which is completely off-set by land-based water storage) and glacier melt can contribute some cm to sea level changes, but when we’re talking meters of rise or fall (like the 120 meters of rise between 15,000 and about 8,000 years ago) — which is what the AGW activists are advocating — tectonic shifts are necessary for that kind of change.

            It’s rather amusing to think that people like SebastianH actually believe that we’ll get 1 meter of sea level rise (which he characterizes as “problematic”) from thermal expansion and glacier melt…especially when considering there is more land area above sea level today than there was in 1985!

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/
            “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart. “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

          2. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @Kenneth

            Yes, SebH seems to be more concerned with contradicting our sources than in being correct.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Except his version of “contradicting our sources” is saying “this is a non-peer-reviewed junk-science paper”. He has nothing substantive to contradict the conclusion that meters-scale sea level changes (which is what he believes we’ll get because, you know, CO2) do not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt. Sea levels rose at rates of about 2-4 meters per century in the past. They’ve changed by a little over a tenth of a meter per century since the 1950s, well within the range of natural variability. The belief that we’ll get a meter or more of sea level rise by 2100 is rooted in presumption.

          4. spike55

            “SebH seems to be more concerned with contradicting our sources “

            Its called “trolling”

            His only reason for existence.

            And he didn’t contradict anything in the paper at all.. he just yapped mindlessly..

          5. spike55

            First of seb’s link

            “modelled from CHIMP5 result”

            So modelled from PROVABLE ERRONEOUS suppositions.

            READ what you post seb.

            You might look less stupid.

        2. SebastianH

          Thank you guys for these thread replies … it really demonstrates what kind of “skeptics” you are 😉 One by one:

          Kenneth:

          It’s not a hoax. But thermal expansion doesn’t deliver enough to sea level rise (about 0.64 mm/yr for 2005-2013) for the currently claimed rate to add up, especially when we consider that terrestrial water storage more than cancels out (-0.71 mm/yr for 2002-2014) the attribution from thermal expansion.

          Are you playing the “I found a paper that says what I want to believe” game again? Since when is land water storage negative?

          https://imgur.com/a/9jqs9mq

          How does this work? You find these papers and they sound perfect for your agenda and then you argue with those “results” presenting them as facts in the hope nobody questions them (e.g. nobody being skeptic about what you claim)?

          So no, it doesn’t cancel out anything, because it is positive, not negative.

          the Greenland ice sheet, for example, has only contributed 1.5 cm since 1900. So where are you imagining we’ll get all this “problematic” 1-meter-by-2100 sea level rise from, SebastianH?

          Maybe you should read chapter 13.4 of the AR5 report again?
          https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf (also take a look at the second screenshot/graph from the imgur.com link above)

          Terrestrial Water Storage: -0.71 mm/yr (2002-2014)
          Reager et al., 2016
          http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699

          So here it is, the paper you used to claim climate driven land storage would cancel out thermal expansion (or as the paper put it, glacier melt). It happens to contradict what the last IPCC report found about these changes (“In summary, climate-related changes in water and snow storage on land do not show significant long-term trends for the recent decades. “). So no skepticism towards extraordinary results like the ones in the Reager paper?

          @Yonason:
          I can’t thank you enough. I was searching this author yesterday and couldn’t remember who it was that made this claim 😉

          “• The thermal expansion in the open oceans can hardly exceed 10 cm (2). Towards the coasts, the effect rapidly decreases with depth and becomes zero at the shore (because there is no water to expand and there will be no flush inlands).”

          That is amazing, so we will have huge water mountains at locations where the ocean is deep. This paper was so hilarious that everyone outside your bubble had a great laugh, but you seem to take it seriously, right?

          “In case of a global sea level rise, the Earth must slow down (following the law of conservation of angular momentum). After 1972, the Earth rotation has speeded up, however (Fig. 4). This is a strong argument against a global sea level rise.”

          Another gem. Earth’s rotation is slowing down by about 2.3 milliseconds every 100 years. The reason being the Moon of course. But if you want to determine if a higher sea level would change Earth’s rotation than please take notice of the fact that rising sea level generally shifts water to the poles. Which means mass moves closer to the axis of rotation, not farther away like Mörner postulates.

          @Kenneth again:

          It’s rather amusing to think that people like SebastianH actually believe that we’ll get 1 meter of sea level rise (which he characterizes as “problematic”) from thermal expansion and glacier melt…

          It is indeed amusing with what kind of “facts” you come up with to justify what you do here. But I am glad you find it funny too.

          So you agree with Yonason that Mörner is on to something, correct? And you think it is consistent with the Khan paper? Meter scale changes in sea level only coming from geological events, correct?

          So why do you claim the following then?

          Sea levels rose at rates of about 2-4 meters per century in the past.

          How does geology change so fast? And why did you use these past higher sea levels to claim that it must have been many degrees warmer back then? Why are you contradicting yourself?

          The belief that we’ll get a meter or more of sea level rise by 2100 is rooted in presumption.

          Not a belief, but a reasonable estimate of future developments. What you do is believing in something, believing that those two authors (Mörner and Khan) are correct.

          He has nothing substantive to contradict the conclusion that meters-scale sea level changes (which is what he believes we’ll get because, you know, CO2) do not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt.

          Again, read the IPCC report. Understand it. And then tell me with a straight face that a “conclusion that sea level change does not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt” has any substance. That is just ridiculous and shows a deep ignorance towards science and math.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Since when is land water storage negative?

            Why is this new information for you? It’s a Science paper. So was Cabanes et al., 2001, which has been cited 410 times. That paper had the terrestrial water storage estimate at -0.35 mm/yr for the last 40 years of the 20th century.

            Cabanes et al., 2001
            http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Cabanes.pdf
            “The third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the various factors that have contributed to the 20th century sea level rise. The largest contribution (0.7 mm/year sea level rise) arises from thermal expansion due to warming of the oceans that mainly occurred since the 1950s. Melting of continental glaciers produces 0.2 to 0.4 mm/year sea level rise. Estimated Greenland and Antarctica mass imbalance contributes –0.2 to 0.6 mm/year. The least certain contribution is the change in terrestrial water storage that results partly from human activities, which is in the range of –1.1 to + 0.4 mm/year with a median value of −0.35 mm/year (i.e., corresponding to sea level drop). The sum of these contributions ranges from −0.8 to 2.2 mm/year, with a median value of 0.7 mm/year.”

            You find these papers and they sound perfect for your agenda and then you argue with those “results” presenting them as facts in the hope nobody questions them

            So peer-reviewed papers in the journal Science that have terrestrial water storage as negative are wrong? Why? Have you even read the full paper?

            So no, it doesn’t cancel out anything, because it is positive, not negative.

            Apparently scientists disagree about this. There’s a lot of uncertainty with these estimates. Obviously, you don’t want terrestrial water storage to lower sea level budgets, so therefore these papers must be “nonsense” and “junk” — and anyone who disagrees with you must be a “pseudoskeptic”.

            So no skepticism towards extraordinary results like the ones in the Reager paper?

            What makes these results extraordinary? The paper’s already been cited 48 times.

            It is indeed amusing with what kind of “facts” you come up with to justify what you do here.

            Since I never characterized TWS estimates as “facts”, you do not have my permission to falsely and dishonestly claim I characterized them as “facts”. Stop making up statements I never made.

            So you agree with Yonason that Mörner is on to something, correct? And you think it is consistent with the Khan paper?

            I have no idea it means to say that “Mörner is on to something”. He published a paper in 2016 (by the way, he’s authored over 500 peer-reviewed papers and is a world-renown expert on sea level rise) that said there is not enough radiative forcing or ice melt at present to reach the claimed 1 meter per century rate of sea level rise you believe in.

            Mörner, 2016
            http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2016112814065672.pdf
            “Sea level is globally varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr (0.5 ± 0.5 mm/yr). … At 11,000 BP we had enormous amounts of ice still left in the huge continental ice caps of the Last Ice Age. In Canada, the ice front was in St. Lawrence lowland, and in Scandinavia, the ice margin was at Stockholm. At the warming pulse ending the Pleistocene and starting the Holocene, ice melted at an exceptionally strong forcing. Today, there is neither ice nor climate forcing that in any way can be compared to what happened 11,000 – 10,000 BP. The conclusion is obvious; we can never in present time have any ice melting and sea level rise as strong- and certainly not stronger-than that occurring at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.”

            “Therefore, a rate of sea level rise of +10.0 mm/yr or 1.0 m per century can be held as the absolutely ultimate value of any present day sea level rise. Any present rise in sea level must be far below this value to be realistic in view of past records and the physical factors controlling ice melting. Therefore, we can also dismiss any claim of sea level rise exceeding 1 m in the next century as sheer nonsense and unfounded demagoguery.”

            And you think it is consistent with the Khan paper? Meter scale changes in sea level only coming from geological events, correct?

            Large-scale geothermal events (that, for example, yield 5-10 C of surface warming in a span of decades) have previously elicited 1-5 meters per century of sea level rise. A rate like that is not possible today with the piddling thermal expansion + the very modest glacier/ice sheet melt contributions, no. Since 1958, for example, the summed contribution from just thermal expansion and glacier/ice sheet melt was just 1.3 mm/yr “for the sum of contributors”, which is a rate of centimeters per century. Compare that rate to what’s occurred in the past: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Holocene-Cooling-Sea-Level-Gulf-Mexico-Donoghue-2011.jpg

            Sea levels rose at rates of about 2-4 meters per century in the past.

            How does geology change so fast?

            Geology? Do you really not know what is meant by “geological events” in the Kahn paper? Here’s a brief introduction…

            “Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale are related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche.”

            And why did you use these past higher sea levels to claim that it must have been many degrees warmer back then?

            Um, because the macro-level geological changes corresponded with orbital and insolation changes and actually raised temperatures by several degrees and led to glacial/interglacial-scale transitions, allowing sea levels to rise/fall by 120 meters. Really? This is new information?

            The belief that we’ll get a meter or more of sea level rise by 2100 is rooted in presumption.

            Not a belief, but a reasonable estimate of future developments.

            On what is this “reasonable estimate” based on? Past changes? There’s more land area above sea level today than there was in 1985.

            And then tell me with a straight face that a “conclusion that sea level change does not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt”

            You purposely misquoted what I wrote. How surprising. Notice that the actual conclusion was “meters-scale sea level changes do not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt”. You left out the “meters-scale” so you could claim I wrote something I did not. How consistent of you to purposely misrepresent what I wrote.

          2. SebastianH

            So peer-reviewed papers in the journal Science that have terrestrial water storage as negative are wrong? Why? Have you even read the full paper?

            Because it is old data? Referencing the third IPCC report? I quoted you the most recent report.

            Don’t you think something that an author describes as “least certain” in 2001 can become better known as technology improves? What other views you have are stuck in the year 2001, Kenneth? Still think that digital photography will never be a thing? 😉

            Apparently scientists disagree about this. There’s a lot of uncertainty with these estimates. Obviously, you don’t want terrestrial water storage to lower sea level budgets, so therefore these papers must be “nonsense” and “junk” — and anyone who disagrees with you must be a “pseudoskeptic”.

            Interesting approach. You try to mirror my accusation back to me. That’s cute. It is you who wants a certain thing to be real so bad that you ignore everything else and point it out as a fact that land water storage would be negative.

            What makes these results extraordinary? The paper’s already been cited 48 times.

            It’s very different from the current ““In summary, climate-related changes in water and snow storage on land do not show significant long-term trends for the recent decades.” view.

            I have no idea it means to say that “Mörner is on to something”. He published a paper in 2016 (by the way, he’s authored over 500 peer-reviewed papers and is a world-renown expert on sea level rise)

            Sorry, that guy wrote that thermal expansion wouldn’t be present in coastal regions because the water is not deep enough there. One can not take such an expert seriously. The other thing is this Earth rotation is speeding up therefore no sea level rise bit. If you don’t understand how hilarious that is, I can’t help you.

            have previously elicited 1-5 meters per century of sea level rise. A rate like that is not possible today with the piddling thermal expansion + the very modest glacier/ice sheet melt contributions, no.

            Why don’t you just read the IPCC report? The part where they describe what contributions will lead to that kind of change. Why are you trusting some weird “scientists” who are so obviously wrong?

            Geology? Do you really not know what is meant by “geological events” in the Kahn paper? Here’s a brief introduction…

            Again, how does it change so fast? (2-4 meters per century global average)

            Um, because the macro-level geological changes corresponded with orbital and insolation changes and actually raised temperatures by several degrees and led to glacial/interglacial-scale transitions, allowing sea levels to rise/fall by 120 meters. Really? This is new information?

            I see, now you think geological changes are causing everything, even temperature change. So that somehow explains how a higher sea level would correlate with warmer temperature in your mind? Because geology changed accordingly as well. Right …

            There’s more land area above sea level today than there was in 1985.

            Because humans build islands and lakes lost water? 😉

            You purposely misquoted what I wrote. How surprising. Notice that the actual conclusion was “meters-scale sea level changes do not occur due to thermal expansion or glacier/ice sheet melt”.

            We were talking about the estimated sea level change until 2100, not multi meter changes. You think that change could not occur due to thermal expansion and glacier/ice sheet melt. Don’t you?

            I am sorry if you feel that I misrepresented what you wrote here. Maybe you can understand how scientists and people trying to discuss something with you feel when you leave out important parts even though i wouldn’t consider the word “meters-scale” important in this context here. I suppose you had to find something so you could again write something about misrepresentation.

            Again, read the actual IPCC report. Understand it. Try to be skeptical about what that Mörner guy says. And of course what’s written in that Khan paper. You are falling to easily for stuff that you find supportive … no hint of skepticism towards those findings ever.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Because it is old data? Referencing the third IPCC report? I quoted you the most recent report.

            Huh? The Reager et al. (2016) Science paper was published in late 2016. The “most recent report” was 2013.

            you ignore everything else and point it out as a fact that land water storage would be negative.

            For the second time in this comment thread, I have not referred to TWS estimates as “fact”. Quote me directly; stop using wording and making up positions that I don’t have.

            It’s very different from the current “In summary, climate-related changes in water and snow storage on land do not show significant long-term trends for the recent decades.” view.

            At what point did 2013 become more “current” than 2016? And thank you for calling the IPCC estimate a “view”. So is the Reager estimate from 2016. Neither are facts. Neither are certain.

            Sorry, that guy wrote that thermal expansion wouldn’t be present in coastal regions because the water is not deep enough there. One can not take such an expert seriously.

            Do you have the direct quote from the actual paper? Because I don’t trust your paraphrasing, as you routinely make up your own stuff and claim that that’s what someone else wrote. It’s likely that he wrote that thermal expansion wouldn’t be as much of a factor along the shallower coastal waters because deeper water expands more than shallow water when it warms (of course). In other words, unlike your likely false paraphrasing, he was speaking in relative terms: more vs. less. Not none vs. all. Your tendency is to purposely leave out key words and replace them with absolutist ones (proves, fact, never, always, 100%, none, etc.) so as to marginalize.

            The other thing is this Earth rotation is speeding up therefore no sea level rise bit.

            You’ve failed to accurately represent what he has written. Do you agree or disagree that there is a “strong linkage between Earth’s rate of rotation […] and changes in ocean circulation” (what he actually wrote)?

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226052204_Earth_rotation_ocean_circulation_and_paleoclimate
            There is a strong linkage between Earth’s rate of rotation — total as well as differential — and the changes in ocean surface circulation. The ocean circulation changes are, in their turn, strongly linked to the paleoclimatic evolution of the boardering land masses. This is due to the high heat-storing capacity of the oceans, the ocean/ atmosphere heat flux, and the ocean/land interaction via heat transport by the winds.”

            Why are you trusting some weird “scientists” who are so obviously wrong?

            So neither Dr. Kahn or Dr. Morner are real scientists now? They’re just…”weird”? In what way are you a scientist, SebastianH?

            I see, now you think geological changes are causing everything, even temperature change.

            That’s not what I wrote. I would ask you to correctly quote what I have actually written rather than making up phrasing and wording (I would never write “causing everything”) and then claiming that that’s what I think. I wrote “macro-level geological changes corresponded with orbital and insolation changes and actually raised temperatures by several degrees and led to glacial/interglacial-scale transitions”. See how different that is than your “now you think geological changes are causing everything” misrepresentation.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071849
            “This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming, when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [3.5 to 6.5 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012]. Currently, we do not know how (or even if) MWP1a, the Bølling warming, and a possible concurrent rapid strengthening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) [e.g., McManus et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 2010] were related.”

          4. Kenneth Richard

            There’s more land area above sea level today than there was in 1985.

            Because humans build islands and lakes lost water?

            No, because geologic changes are more determinative of changes in relative sea level than climate factors.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1146609X15300266
            “This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area

            You think that change could not occur due to thermal expansion and glacier/ice sheet melt. Don’t you?

            No, for the 3rd time in this comment thread, that’s not what I’ve written. (And you know that, but purposely misrepresented what I wrote anyway.) For meters-scale (I didn’t use “multi-meter”) changes to occur, we will need far more warming than what is available currently with climate-related factors. Thermal expansion contributed about about 0.6 to 0.7 mm/yr during the last 50-60 years. Glacier/ice sheet melt contributed about 0.6 to 0.7 mm/yr during the last 50-60 years. The “sum of the contributors” to sea level rise for 1958-2014 amounted to a paltry 1.3 mm/yr (and this doesn’t include terrestrial water storage estimates). That’s not enough to get to the 1 meter of rise by 2100 that you believe we’ll get. For meters-scale changes to occur, we’d need ice sheet collapse and for kilometers-thick ice sheets to be blanketing much of the Northern Hemisphere (as was the case 15,000 years ago) to yield this kind of change. The poles average -30 C year-round. East Antarctica — where the vast majority of the Earth’s land water exists — has been cooling and gaining mass for decades. Greenland contributed 1.5 cm of sea level rise equivalent meltwater in the 110 years between 1900 and 2010. Again, 1.5 cm/century contribution is not enough for meters-scale sea level rise.

            I am sorry if you feel that I misrepresented what you wrote here.

            You purposely misquoted me by putting quotes around wording that I never used, excluding the wording (“meters-scale”) that I actually did use. Would it be so difficult to actually quote what I truly did write?

            i wouldn’t consider the word “meters-scale” important in this context here.

            Why would clarifying the relative amount not be important? By excluding it, you are purposely making it appear as if I have written that thermal expansion and glacier/ice sheet melt don’t contribute to sea level rise. They do. Just not enough to reach the “problematic” levels of sea level rise you believe in.

            I suppose you had to find something so you could again write something about misrepresentation.

            I don’t enjoy pointing out that you have misrepresented what I wrote. Why not avoid this by taking the few seconds to copy/paste my exact wording, including all the key words? It would be more honest.

          5. spike55

            Seb, STOP PRETENDING that you have a sceptical bone in your body.

            YOU DON’T

            You just have a mindless reaction against ANYTHING that counters you AGW brain-hosing.

            You mindlessly believe EVERYTHING pro the AGW scam…

            … and mindlessly try to use anti-science bluster and yabbering to counter anything that is counter the scam.

            That is NOT scepticism.. that is ZEALOTRY.

            But you are too self-absorbed in pumping up your own baseless self-importance to see it.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        this is a non-peer-reviewed junk-science paper and you guys are falling for it without the hint of just a little bit of skepticism

        We are skeptical of your belief that we can get to 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100 via thermal expansion (which is offset/canceled out completely by terrestrial water storage) and glacier/ice sheet melt (Antarctica, Greenland, mountain ice), which has only contributed a few centimeters in the last 50-some years of “hottest on record” temperatures. So where is your skepticism that we can get to 1 meter of sea level rise with the current contributors?

        It’s interesting that when a renown university geophysicist concludes something you disagree with, suddenly it becomes a “junk science” journal that is not peer-reviewed. This is from the same person who regularly cites blogs or The Guardian as references.

        In case you’re interested, here is a more in-depth look at the Khan paper from back in March, including supporting evidence from several other papers that are peer-reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals.

        http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/26/groundbreaking-new-paper-finds-global-warming-ice-melt-not-related-to-sea-level-rise/

        I doubt you’re interested, though, SebastianH. As a believer, you prefer to glance and then start in on the accusations.

        1. SebastianH

          We are skeptical of your belief that we can get to 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100 via thermal expansion (which is offset/canceled out completely by terrestrial water storage) and glacier/ice sheet melt (Antarctica, Greenland, mountain ice), which has only contributed a few centimeters in the last 50-some years of “hottest on record” temperatures.

          1) “(which is offset/canceled out completely by terrestrial water storage)” … just no. Where is your skepticism towards papers like the one you cited for this claim?

          2) It’s not my belief. It’s what thousands of scientists estimate will happen: https://imgur.com/a/9jqs9mq (second image for the how).

          So where is your skepticism that we can get to 1 meter of sea level rise with the current contributors?

          There are sufficient sources/papers that go into that direction. I don’t just follow a paper/author blindly when the “results” are what I like to hear … like you do. Papers that go against the rest and sound physically impossible always make me skeptic about them.

          It’s interesting that when a renown university geophysicist concludes something you disagree with, suddenly it becomes a “junk science” journal that is not peer-reviewed. This is from the same person who regularly cites blogs or The Guardian as references.

          1) this guy is citing Wikipedia in this “paper”.
          2) he claims that “melt-water would not move from polar region to equatorial region.” and yet he also claims that melting ice from Antarctica “can cool ocean-water in the region of equatorial bulge thus can prevent thermal expansion of the ocean water”.

          Not suspicious yet? Then how about this great scientific breakthrough?
          3) “Further, melt-water of the floating ice-sheets will reoccupy same volume of the displaced water by floating ice-sheets causing no sea-level rise.” … I bet this finding surprised him a lot and thus it deserves mentioning.

          And the of course this gem:
          4) “Melting of land ice in both the polar region can substantially reduce load on the crust allowing crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift causing sea level to drop relatively.”

          So the ice melts and the land below rises because less weight keeps it down. So he claims that this would mean that the relative sea level of that location would drop and presumably cancel out the rise from the melting ice, correct? Does this work just like in point 3 above? Well, what about the rest of the planet? Doesn’t the rebounding crust also displace water in that region increasing the sea level everywhere else? What do you think?

          See, it is full of contradictions and sentences like “Author gratefully acknowledges the critical and constructive comments of one anonymous reviewer” don’t inspire a lot of confidence in this work or that someone who has clue had anything to do with it. That rings my skeptic alarm bells, but apparently not yours. You just believe it because it supports that “we are being lied to” theme.

          In case you’re interested, here is a more in-depth look at the Khan paper from back in March, including supporting evidence from several other papers that are peer-reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals.

          Umm, I linked to your posting about this paper above (first comment of mine in the comment section) already. Highlighting how you found the Khan paper to be “seminal” 😉

          I doubt you’re interested, though, SebastianH. As a believer, you prefer to glance and then start in on the accusations.

          No, as a sane person with some level of understanding of physics and math, I am able to detect BS. That’s called being skeptic. What you do is called confirming your bias any way possible … even if you have to support Mörner or Khan like papers/authors.

          1. spike55

            “as a sane person with some level of understanding of physics and math,”

            ROFLMAO

            You really are fooling yourself this time seb

            hilarious, to say the least.

      3. spike55

        ” What? Are you saying that thermal expansion is a hoax too?”

        Where did I say that?

        You are FABRICATING CRAP yet again !!

        Thermal expansion due to natural solar warming has a large effect.

        1. SebastianH

          ” What? Are you saying that thermal expansion is a hoax too?”

          Where did I say that?

          “the AGW sea-level worriers/scammers have to introduce things like thermal expansion and modelled GIA to scare their supporters.”

          To me that sounds like you are saying that AGW proponents “invented” thermal expansion due to global warming (rising OHC) because ice melt would not be a big enough contributor alone.

          Thermal expansion due to natural solar warming has a large effect.

          This is confusing. What kind of thermal expansion did you mean then in the part I cited?

          1. spike55

            Poor seb

            Manic comprehension issue, as always

            Yes, we know you are VERY confused.

            And YET AGAIN avoiding any science to back up any warming by CO2, basically admitting that the tiny OHC rise is purely down to solar effects.

          2. SebastianH

            you could have replied with a more informative comment spike55. Instead you just write down some insult and don’t explain yourself. Very mature …

            basically admitting that the tiny OHC rise is purely down to solar effects.

            Serious question, do you think climate science says that CO2 is warming the ocean? Is that your level of understanding? Of course it is the Sun. I think you are a little bit lost here.

          3. spike55

            Yes we KNOW only SOLAR energy warms the ocean.

            Nothing to do with human anything.

            Thanks for the admission

            FINALLY can we get away from the idiotic conjecture that human CO2 has any effect whatsoever on OHC.

            You are totally lost without that conjecture, though, aren’t you seb.

  6. flow in

    With a hollow earth model, the outer seas are joined to the inner sea by the ‘great fountains of the deep’. As spacetime within the shell is near flat, and ice melt results in the inner sea growing. Observed sea level is matched to terrain mass, and is a solution to the least energy state for a shell held together by lateral gravitational attraction.
    The biblical floods occurred because the connecting passages froze over.
    Hollow earth models simplify so many things, and explain so many ‘anomalies’

  7. Derg

    If anyone has coastline property I am willing to buy your worthless property for $10 US dollars. This is a steal considering it will be underwater 🙂

    1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

      SCAM ALERT

      Derg is just trying to cheat you. How DARE he?!

      I’ll give you $12.00 US. 🙂

      1. spike55

        spikes checks in his wallet and bank account..

        .. and ups the bid to $16.75 AU.

        1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)
  8. Surprise: Coastal Shorelines Mostly Stable Or Growing » Pirate's Cove

    […] (NoTricksZone) Accelerating sea level rise due to global warming is supposed to eat away at the shorelines across the globe. However a recent paper published in the journal Nature here authored by a team scientists led by Arjen Luijendijk found that some 75% of the world’s sandy shorelines are stable or growing! […]

  9. glaziers-wembley.co.uk

    At times, they work on scaffolds at great heights.

  10. spike55

    Suppose a significant proportion of the Pacific basin had gradually bulging by say 20cm over the last 100 years, would we even know?

    Yet it might be enough to account for ALL of the current tiny sea level rise that may have occurred.

    We totally missed the formations of those islands that just “appeared”.

    Only just discovering large volcanic regions under Antarctica.

    We know tectonic plates are constantly shifting.

    There is merit in the suggestion of, what sea level rise there is, being mostly NOT from Arctic and Antarctic non-melt.

  11. Papers: Sea Level Rise Claims 'Conjecture'…'Highly Erroneous' | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  12. 3 Trillion Tons of Ice Vanish!!! The Impact on NYC Sea Level? Not Measurable – CO2 is Life

    […] New Research Finds Sea Level Rise Claims “Definitely Conjecture”…”Highly Erroneous”…Coastlines Stable Or Growing! (Source) […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close